LALNEIHZOVI Vs. NORH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment WP,(C) No. 96/ 99, 5/2000 and 40/2000 are being disposed of as the issue to be decided in all these writ petitions centre around the question whether the writ petitioners who were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lecturer in the North Eastern Hill University have acquired any vested right for regularisation in service.

(2.) I have heard Mr. K P Pathak, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr. S. Sailo, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) For better appreciation I would like to clear the facts first. It would appear from the averments made in writ petition No-96/99 that the North Eastern Hill University, hereinafter referred to asNEHU, issued an advertisement on 20th July, 1989 inviting applications for temporary posts of lecturer in the Mizoram Campus for appointment on ad-hoc basis in the Department of Public Administration, Education and Psychology from candidates having good academic record with at least 55%marks in the Master Degree in the relevant subject. It was further indicated in the said advertisement that preference will be given to the candidates having Research Degrees like M. Phil Ph.D. The petitioner, in response thereof, submitted her application. By order dated 13th September, 1989, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Local Selection Committee, she was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Public Administration purely on temporary basis till the end of the current academic session or till a regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. The temporary appointment of writ petitioner was extended subsequently by orders dated 24.2,90, 18.9.90, 15.4.91 11.9.91, 20.4.92, 21.9.92,22.4.93,18.10.93,16.12.93,29.4.94 and 223,95. The petitioner also submitted representation in the meantime for consideration of her case for regularisation. While she was awaiting regularisation, the respondentNo. 4 informed her on2.5.95 that her service would no longer be required by the NEHU and steps are being taken to appoint a candidate, if necessary by fresh advertisement. She approached this court and filed the writ petition which was admitted on 22.3,99. Prior to that, on 28.6,95 while issuing notice, the court directed that the petitioner shall not be ousted from service.,